New Policy Discussion - **NO** Politics (& maybe Religion) in Sigs

What needs to be said? Taking away a person's ability to freely express part of who they are is really lame. I am not personally political or religious but I do advocate people's ability to freely express what and who they are and I'd think that politics is one of the biggies to how a person thinks, which in my book is most of what/who a person is. End of story.

 

Honestly, I beleive this is a horrible decision. If someone considers a sig offense, then it should be reveiwed, but this seems like over kill to me. Is my sig honestly offensive to anyone?

 

Well now that I'm out of the convo, I said my piece, I'll now observer, maybe throw a witty comment in now and then.

 

Hold the phone!

One thing to remember, said by the venerable Lord Bane (ahem ) - And we are not stakeholders, we are standard wavers, or solicitors, or something related in that sense. We have no true stake in this place monetarily or physically unless you go through withdrawl. I'm sure some do. They owe us explanations, sure, but are not beholden to us in any way when it comes to making decisions.

They decide what is best for the boards, good or bad, not us and never us.

This is not a democracy; it you haven't learned that by force yet learn it now.

 

Imrahil-- I would change my sig if I were you . . . its not allowed anymore.

 

at best they are a method of making a statement which no one can respond to.

I'd link you to Comms, but you appear to be here already. Anytime someone has a big enough problem with a sig to do something about it, they do, be it posting here, or PMing a mod. If they don't care enough to do something about it, then there was no problem to begin with.

 

I've had that sig for many months and have not recieved one complaint. How come all of a sudden it is deemed offensive and banable?

 

how many more lame & stupid decisions are going to happen around here? would this mean i have to remove my 9/11 comment in my sig? there's an offical 9/11 thread in the Senate, so would that apply to this? ?

 

Per the update:

After some discussion, we unanimously decided to add a new rule to our terms of service:

 

It bothers me that Internet Dramas post was deleted..he was trying to make a point that peopleare taking this DRAMA too seriously and that flaming is getting us nowhere.

 

LB that is very true.

But there are also very real limits to the Administrations power. The rules are only as good as their ability to be enforced.

While it's true they sometimes have to make hard decision, a bad decision can be sucessfully challenged, and should be.

 

We weren't flaming, I_D was spamming and that is that. We were discussing with a civil, if a bit heated tone. It was not drama, but argument over a policy.

Not every Communications thread is drama.

 

Again, I think this is a hasty and irrational decision.

Two days after Vaderbait's banning this comes down? Without discussion with the AC or reg. members?

This "problem" with sigs, seemed pretty nonexistant b4 this decision. Not only is it an encroachment on freedom but it's going to be incredibly difficult to enforce objectively if at all.

 

I'd have to agree that the new policy doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If the signature isn't hurting anybody or isn't offensive to anybody, then why shouldn't it be allowed? Just because we happen to have a forum dealing with that subject matter does not mean that people shouldn't be able to voice their opinion in a harmless manner elsewhere. And has Josh or Scott seen this new policy? I'm not too sure if they would appreciate owning a message board that doesn't allow people to voice harmless opinions in their signature, but I could be wrong.

I'd suggest review the sigs on a case by case basis. Or perhaps this would be a good time for the AC to step in and make, what, their third major decision since its revival?

All in all, this seems like a decision that was made quite hastily after one offensive signature was brought up.

Oh, and hello, Erik! It seems that you and your good friend have something against a humorous sock. And please, using phrases like "shut up" do nothing to lighten the mood or atmosphere of the thread, especially when the post right before it was asking the participants to remain civil! I_D's post did absolutely nothing to rile people up or make the thread uncivil, but I dare say that your post just may have! I'd honestly hate to see something happen to you for telling me to shut up!

 

"Not only is it an encrouchment on freedom"

Again, this is not a democracy, nor do the US freedoms apply here. They are only valid in the US of A. This is the internet and a privately owned site.

I'd honestly hate to see something happen to you for telling me to shut up! -Dan

I just say rah bah bah to that, sir. Complain if you want, but by rights of the board, such a mild comment would first require a warning. I simply would not abide nor agree to a banning brought on by trying to keep this thread on track.

Now back to the discussion.

 

Again, this is not a democracy, nor do the US freedoms apply here. They are only valid in the US of A. This is the internet and a privately owned site.


True. But allowing people to express themselves freely on a message board should be a goal upheld by the people in charge. Now its the other way around. This is wrong.

Preserving these things is in the site's best interest. I'd like to know what Josh or Scott have to say.

 

such a mild comment would first require a warning.

So you're saying that you told him to shut up because you knew you'd get away with it?

*rolls eyes*

 

"I'd like to know what Josh or Scott have to say."

We all want to know, but they rarely follow in the JC's affairs enough to even know what's going on. They do broad policy and leave the small stuff or the focused work to the Adminisration. It's a rarity that they even comment in here.

 

Two issues here, among others:

Freedom of speech (discussed countless times relative to online freedom of speech, both here and elsewhere online).

The sense of making a blanket ban on political speeches.

Make sure you know what you're objecting to.

 

Ah, but Mr. Erik M.H., you are a former mod and would surely know the rules by now, would you not? I mean, you guys permanently banned PreacherBoy for saying an equally mild comment with one of your reasons being that he is a former moderator and should know the rules! By admitting that you should indeed receive a warning for the comment, you are admitting that you broke the rules, and since you are a former mod, be submitted to the same punishment that was given to Joel.

 

I have a quick question. Was Vaiderbait banned because of his sig alone, or had he done other stuff?

 

No, I was saying if someone found that offensive, it is so mild that it would only require a warning. I would never have banned someone for that or even warned them.

PreacherBoy flamed others. He railed on others. He did not pussyfoot around anything nor was he even trying to be civil or keep things on track. He was a troll, in the end.

If you want to discuss this further, use PMs. That is what they are there for. I won't reply anymore in this thread to your comments on things unrelated to the topic at hand.

Back to issue.

 

LB we both know what they're going to say to the idea that religious sigs should be banned.

 

Back on track, please.

 

True, true.

"We're Christian, so everyone who shares this belief can say that. You all, the ones with differing opinions - just be quiet!"